Inverse Perspective in Cézanne’s Art
Ivana J. Marcikić
PhD Proffesor
Department of Applied Graphic
University of Art in Belgrade
Faculty of Applied Arts
Marijana V. Paunović
Ass. Professor
Department of Applied Graphic
University of Art in Belgrade
Faculty of Applied Arts
In a special way, “Cézanne’s wedge” allows the model of inverse
perspective to be used for the representation of space and objects in
painting. As a bridge between the ancient style of “dividing” construction
and Renaissance perspective, inverse perspective as an important
projection model, due to the fact that it represents an object with the
minimum of hidden parts, compared to representation in any other system
of projection. The optical-physiological properties of the optic apparatus,
the fact that we perceive space from two points, inverse perspective, which
implies a multiocular view with many binocular pairs of points, are close
to natural vision. Popular-culture’s need for the sensation of 3D space in a
picture separates artistic creativity from the individual expression of the
artist, his intuitive geometry and its spirit of revised reality, which are
important characteristics of every masterpiece.
This paper analyses the inverse perspective and its effects in the
representation of space in Cézanne’s paintings.
Keywords: space in painting; inverse perspective; Cézanne’s wedge;
scientific perspective; view point; vanishing point
1.
INTRODUCTION
Geometric approaches to theoretic explanations of the
visual effects in painted masterpieces, including those of
Cezanne, are absent. The inverse perspective in
Cezanne's work has not, to date, been analysed.
Western theorists discuss visual art quite generally
and almost casually when considering Cezanne's
paintings. The reason could be that they have
insufficient knowledge and recognition of inverse
perspective as a projection system of medieval Eastern
painting. Thus, the meaning of the "new" space in a
painting is attributed exclusively to the Western
renaissance perspective.
As the effects of inverse space and that space's
inverse projection are present in all thematic areas of
Cezanne's paintings (still life, portraits, landscapes), this
paper analyses the areas of constructive geometry,
geometrical optics and optical-physiological perspec–
tive, according to the stated sections.
2.
but there is an aerial perspective created by the tonal
scale of the colour blue. The artistic tools evoke a
landscape of extraordinary warmth.
Figure 1. Women Bathers, Paul Cézanne, 1898-1905,
Philadelphia Museum of Art (Source: Schapiro)
CÉZANNE’S LANDSCAPES
Cézanne’s landscapes appear to be scenes from a
theatrical space with an emphatically shallow stage
depth (Fig.1). That is why the image “expands” along
the horizontal, the foreground is realistic, and
everything located behind appears as though it is
depicted on a stage curtain placed in the background of
the composition.
The result is a new space in the painting. The
renaissance perspective is absent, depth is “abolished”,
jet not volume, there is no accentuated vanishing point,
Received: June 2016, Accepted: November 2016
Correspondence to: Ivana Marcikic, PhD Professor
Department of Applied Graphic, University of Art in
Belgrade, Faculty of Applied Arts
E-mail: [email protected]
doi:10.5937/fmet1702301M
© Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Belgrade. All rights reserved
Figure 2. Mont Sainte-Victoire, Paul Cézanne,1885-1887,
Courtauld Institute of Art, London (Source: Schapiro)
A comparative analysis reveals the difference
between depicting Cézanne's (Fig.2) and Rubens'
(Fig.3) landscapes, depicted here.
FME Transactions (2071) 45, 301-306 301
surfaces (Fig.4) so as to create the impression that they
are “falling” towards us. Their edges, which are
perpendicular to the painting's surface, begin to separate
from each other as their distance increases.
Figure 3. A View of Het Steen in the Early Morning, Peter
Paul Rubens, 1636, National Gallery, London (Source:
Weltonová)
In the painting of Paul Cézanne (Fig.2), the tree in the
foreground frames the composition with its trunk and
top and it makes us experience the other elements in the
painting as if they are being viewed through a window.
The horizontal lines of the roads and the viaduct in the
frontal perspective, as well as the entire composition's
horizontal line, are superimposed onto the vertical line
of the tree. The tree doesn't disrupt the image with its
pure verticality. The treetop unfolds over the landscape,
without blocking any of its parts, but creating new and
exciting elements in the sky. The effect of accentuated
depth and spatial enlargement is achieved. “Lines
perpendicular to that horizon give depth. But for us
men, nature has more depth than surface, hence the need
to introduce our vibrations of light, represented by reds
and yellows, enough blue tints to give a feeling of air.”
From Cézanne's letter to Emile Bernard, April 15, 1904.
Francis Jourdain, Cézanne, Paris 1950. Pg.11.
Figure 5. Frescoe in narthex of Arch. Danilo II (detail), 1565,
The Patriarchate of Peć, (Source: Đurić, at al.), analysis of
authors
Figure 6. Stigmatization of St Francis, Giotto di Bondone,
Basilica of St. Francis Assisi, Italy, 1297-1300 (Source:
http://www.encyclopedie.bseditions.fr/image/article/image/I
TPEIPRIGIOTTOB074.jpg)
The choice of projection, one in which an
architectural object is depicted, is uncannily similar for
both Giotto (Fig.6) and Cézanne (Fig.7).
Figure 4. Rocks and Trees, Paul Cézanne, ~1904,
Philadelphia Museum of Art (Source:
http://www.barnesfoundation.org/collections/artcollection/object/5016/rocks-and-trees-rochers-et-arbres),
analysis of authors
Cézanne's bas-relief (Fig.4) carries with it the effects
of a Byzantine fresco (Fig.5), removing the barrier
between the space of the gallery and the painting,
directing the observer's attention to individual objects;
each represented by their most important characteristics,
in differently selected projections used in the same
composition.
Thinking that there is a “single pure truth of things
in painting”, Cézanne intuitively comes up with
geometric solutions characteristic of frescos or icons
from the medieval period (Fig.5). He depicts horizontal
302 ▪ VOL. 45, No 2, 2017
Figure 7. House in Provence, Paul Cézanne,1885-1886, The
John Herron Art Institute, Indianapolis (Source: Schapiro)
Mirabeau, the grandest boulevard in Aix-enProvence, has lines of trees on either side, whose tops
come together to create a verdant tunnel (Fig.8). As can
FME Transactions
be expected, the triangular shape inspired Cézanne. He
uses isosceles triangles in his compositions to position
figures, objects and, most frequently, to depict
landscapes (Fig.9).
Figure 10. Trees and Houses, Paul Cézanne,1885-1887,
Lehman Collection, New York, (Source: Taylor), analysis of
authors
Figure 8. The cours Mirabeau, grandest of Aix’s
boulevards, Provence, (Source: Williams), analysis of
authors
Figure 9. The Lac d'Annecy, Paul Cézanne,~1896,
Courtauld Institute of Art, London, (Source:
http://www.paul-cezanne.org/The-Lac-D-Annecy.html),
analysis of authors
The water’s (lake shore) horizontal line
geometrically divides the composition (Fig.9). With it,
Cézanne seems to want to stress the duplication of the
motif, i.e. the orthogonal symmetry of the landscape and
its reflection on the water’s surface. The shape of the
tree trunk exhibits the above-mentioned symmetry along
the same horizontal axis, even though it is set apart at
the front, in the foreground. The lower and right-side
edges of the painting intersect the lake’s surface and
enlarge it. The isosceles triangle, so often used in
Cézanne’s compositional scheme, is created here with
the boundary line of the water’s green sections and the
painting’s lower edge, directing the observer’s gaze
towards the geometric centre where the composition’s
diagonals intersect. By replacing the orthogonal line, the
lines of the triangle intensify the depth of the depicted
landscape. Provence’s tree tops are Mediterranean;
imposing with their green, almost black, colour. The
frames of Cézanne's landscapes are often made from
these branches, which focus the observer's attention to
“behind” the landscape, providing depth, along with the
effect of “looking through”. The bases of the trunks are
connected (Fig.10) by two lines which intersect “in
front” of the painting, giving the effect of inverse
volume. Thus the architectural object's facadecontaining background is enlarged, compared to the
foreground.
FME Transactions
The ability to focus on shape and colour, the art of
separating the consequential from the accompanying
impurities, which interfere with the impression he wants
to make on the observer, are all part of the secret of
Cézanne’s artistic genius.
Provence, “the Lord's garden”, was as if made to
serve as a theme for the greatest painters of the 19th and
20th centuries, and it stimulated Cézanne's use of colour
to fill the entire spectrum. Its flower fields of lavender,
the range of the green hues of treetops, the most diverse
multitude of unique floral specimens, the colour of the
water, lakes and rivers, acting like natural mirrors, the
remains of Roman architecture (aqueducts and
viaducts), appear today less as accidental decor, and
more as the only possible environment for each of
Cézanne's landscapes.
“Cézanne embodied spirit of France in his work, yet
he never painted an historical subject in his life. He was
the logical result of generations of culture and high
thinking. He loved the soil, and his work lives and
speakers of a great people… An artist may belong
wholly to his country and yet be claimed by the
universe.” Everett Carroll Maxwell, artist, 1917.
(Stavitsky, G., at al. 2009:52)
3.
CÉZANNE’S STILL LIFES
In contrast to the opinion of the esteemed theoretician
and art critic, the extraordinary connoisseur of visual
arts, Professor Lazar Trifunović, we consider that the
individual objects in Cézanne's paintings aren't
deformed, but have an unusual spatial layout and are
revealed by deliberately “moving” the eye of the person
who made them part of the painting, as well as our own,
observing them.
Figure 11. Birth of Mother of God (detail) altar-southern
wall, around 1345, church of St. Demetrius, The
Patriarchate of Peć, (Source: Đurić, at al.)
VOL. 45, No 2, 2017 ▪ 303
Cézanne doesn't use a geometrical shadow, but
instead one he seems to have “borrowed” from the Peć
Patriarchy fresco which depicts a maidenly face and a
vessel filled with water (Fig.11); its objects are neither
elongated, nor shortened, but just “turned” toward us in
order for us to better understand their shape. He
achieves the “kinetic eye” effect through the use of
inverse perspective, revealing to us the surfaces that are
important for defining and displaying specific segments
or the entirety of the composition, which would be
impossible to perceive through the use of the
Renaissance perspective (Fig.12). Cézanne is familiar
with the optical-physiological perspective and uses the
phenomenon of successive image perception by making
us change our viewpoint, thereby dictating the
observer's movements. We can recall that the Byzantine
perspective has the same effect, as well as Serbian
medieval painting.
canvas. The effect he created in this manner is the same
as the one created by using the inverse perspective. A
detailed analysis of the constructed contours (ellipses)
of both circular plates proves that they are in different
planes; with the larger one belonging to the plane which
slants on a steep angle towards the table's surface, and
the other following the horizontal surface's angle. Geo–
metric analysis of the painting's third surface of revo–
lution surface (Fig.14, detail) confirms the use of se–
veral projection systems for the same object. A devia–
tion from the geometric method of displaying rotatio–
nal forms in axonometry is constructively demonstrated.
Figure 14. Still Life with a Plate of Cherries and detail, Paul
Cézanne,1885-1887, Los Angeles County Museum of Art;
Venturi no. 498, analysis of authors
Figure 12. Still life with apples, Paul Cézanne, 1893 - 1894,
J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles (The Getty Centre),
(Source: http://www.paul-cezanne.org/home-1-96-1-0.html),
analysis of authors
The surface of revolution (Fig.15) is analysed by
geometric restitution and the conclusion reached is that
the rotation axis in the painting is deliberately skewed
towards the vertical line, slanted in the direction of the
observer with the intention of achieving the effect of
defining the circle-parallels which, in the frontal
perspective, would be emphatically shortened, almost
imperceptible as a projection of the circle, if the
vertically placed axis was retained.
The painting, “Basket of Apples” (Fig.13), in which
the stand, known as Cézanne's wedge, is noticeable
under the fruit basket, dispels any doubts.
Figure 13. Still life with Basket of Apples, 1890-1894, Paul
Cézanne, Art Institute of Chicago IL (Source: Schapiro)
Cézanne used these kinds of stands, of varying sizes,
(Fig.14) in order to tilt objects he painted, towards
himself. He placed them in this position to not only
make them more visible, but as though he was an
iconographer, providing the observer with as much
visual information as possible. Cézanne's wedge
confirms that he painted objects according to models.
He consistently replicated their spatial layout on the
304 ▪ VOL. 45, No 2, 2017
Figure 15. Tulips and Apples, Paul Cézanne, 1890-1893, Art
Institute of Chicago IL (Source: Schapiro), analysis of authors
When he, almost constructively, with geometric
precision sets up the parallel lines of the cuboid, most
often as the edges of the table, which itself is the
pedestal of still lifes, he intuitively re-establishes the
effect of spatial inversion by resolving shadows of
different thicknesses (Fig.16).
FME Transactions
Gascau”. Lazar Trifunović, Slikarski Pravci XX veka,
Priština / Beograd, 1981, Pg. 256.
4.
CÉZANNE’S FIGURES
Just like in a theatre scene, Cézanne positions two
figures that are actively participating in the action, by
displaying their profiles in a psychological relationship
(Fig.17).
Figure 16. Still Life with Milk Jug and Fruit, Paul Cézanne,
~1900, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. (Source:
https://www.artsy.net/artwork/paul-cezanne-still-life-withmilk-jug-and-fruit), analysis of authors
Cézanne also directs his artistic energy towards the
search for what is quite unnecessary in the objects that
have been chosen to be transplanted onto the canvas, so
as to “disrupt” the composition, to “ruin” adjacent
objects, to “disturb” the harmony of the whole, to
“derange” the harmony of colour.
A man's destiny is this influence of everything from
his surroundings on an individual figure or object. We
do not see or know anything, unless we make
comparisons: big-small, beautiful-ugly, static-dynamic,
real-imaginary and good-bad.
The breadth of Cézanne's character, this philosophy
of “what is complex needs to be made simple”, has
opened the way towards a new painting. His preference
for using the same objects, set up differently in relation
to each other, speaks of the need to constantly study and
instinctively search for, as he calls it, “the truth in
painting”. However, his paintings are, individually,
examples of discovering new subtleties within
theoretical conclusions.
As if spending his entire life “mocking” the board of
the École des Beaux-Arts, who turned his admission
down, Cézanne demonstrates with each new painting
bearing the same theme, what he can do and his sense of
using colours and shapes, which they, before he
appeared, knew nothing about. In creating a still life, the
contrast achieved through light and shadows indicates
the influence of Velasquez’s and Caravaggio’s works,
which Cézanne studied in the Louvre.
As Professor Trifunović writes, the works of
Lobachevsky, Gauss and Ryman, concerning the spatial
curvature of the universe and its non-Euclidian
geometry, were certainly known to Cézanne, but we
think that he was wrong to conclude that, because of
this, Cézanne constructed “a specific space which
develops through the planimetric conquest of painted
surfaces, as opposed to the static and three-dimensional
Euclidian lacuna...” (Trifunović, 1981:35)
Our arguments take into account the fact that
Euclidian space is, still today, the only one we inhabit,
move in, think in and can measure with a divider and
ruler. All other spaces are from an “irrational universe”
known only to pure science. Our imagination can
“curve” a plane, but we cannot as much as walk on such
a surface.
“Cézanne's complex theoretic constructs were
preserved in letters written to E. Bernard and Dr.
FME Transactions
Figure 17. The Card Players, 1890-1892, The Louvre, Paris
(Source: Schapiro), analysis of authors
He again uses the inverse projection, directing the main
contours of both figures towards the observer. We are
introduced to the space of the painting in the simplest
way possible. The inverse perspective, combined with
the frontal perspective, is also used here. The result is an
emphasised dramatic moment. In the example of one
figure in a twisted bodily posture (Fig.18), Cézanne
turns the face towards the front, thereby creating a direct
communication. He again uses the elements of inverse
projection, which the analysis (Fig.18) indicates.
Figure 18. Chocquet Seated, Paul Cézanne,~1877, Gallery
of Fine Arts, Ohio (Source: Schapiro), analysis of authors
VOL. 45, No 2, 2017 ▪ 305
5.
CONCLUSION
The magnitude of Cézanne's idea and his “truth of
things” lie in the freedom to combine antique
perspective, Egyptian projection, Giotto's parallel
projection, inverse perspective and especially the oftenused axonometry. He takes them as one would take
tools off “his atelier’s shelf” and thoughtfully combines
them to create what the artist sees.
The geometric analysis of landscapes, still lifes and
figurative compositions affirms the hypothesis that, in
Cézanne's paintings, inverse space is prevalent, one that
is created by slanting surfaces or objects towards the
observer (Cézanne's wedge), through enlarging the
background, using the effect of light and shadow, and
most frequently by intersecting lines that are
perpendicular to the painting's surface, situated in the
same space as the observer.
[3] Pipes, A.: Foundation of Art and Design, Laurence
King Publishing Ltd, London, 2008.
[4] Schapiro, M.: Paul Cézanne, Harry N. Abrams, Inc,
New York, 1963.
[5] Stavitsky, G., at al.: Cézanne and American
Modernism. Montclair Art Museum, Baltimore
Museum of Art, Yale University Press, New Haven
and London, 2009.
[6] Trifunović, L.: Trends in the 20th century Painting
(Slikarski pravci XX veka), Prosveta, Beograd, 1994.
[7] Taylor, B.: Cézanne, Spring Book, London, 1961.
[8] Weltonová, J.: Eyewitness Art – Looking at
Paintings (Jak Vnímat Obrazy), Dorling Kindersley
and Perfekt, Bratislava, 1995.
[9] Williams, R.: Provence & the Côte d’Azur, Dorling
Kindersley Limited, London, 2014.
ИНВЕРЗНА ПЕРСПЕКТИВА НА СЕЗАНОВОЈ
СЛИЦИ
И. Марцикић, М. Пауновић
Figure 19. Cézanne's studio (Source: http://www.avignonet-provence.com/aix-en-provence/cezannestudio/#.VyPtNvl95hE)
Cézanne didn't “escape” into the irrational, although
many did. However, his unique genius was also in his
determination to stay with his apples, ordinary bottles
and almost ugly, mismatched plates. The fact that these
objects, through his “truth in painting”, have become the
most beautiful we've ever seen or ever will see, helps us
persevere in the not-at-all-simple attempt to answer the
question “What is Cézanne's truth in painting”?
This paper needs to be understood as such.
REFERENCES
[1] Loran, E.: Cézanne’s Composition, University of
California Press, Barkley and Los Angeles, 1959.
[2] Đurić, J., et al.: The Patriarchate of Peć (Pećka
patrijaršija), Jugoslovenska revija, Belgrade, 1990.
306 ▪ VOL. 45, No 2, 2017
У извесном смислу, коришћење Сезановог клипа
представља
модел
инверзне
перспективе
употребљене за приказ простора и објеката на
слици. Као мост између античке тзв. „подеоне
конструкције“, односно „перспективе рибље кости“
и ренесансне перспективе, инверзна перспектива је
важан пројекциони модел, посебно и због чињенице
да у њој приказани објекти имају најмање
заклоњених делова, а у поређењу са приказима у
било ком другом пројекцијском систему. Оптичкофизиолошке особине очног апарата, чињеница да
посматрамо простор из две тачке, чини да се
инверзна перспектива коју карактеришу погледи из
више парова тачака, приближава природном
виђењу.
Фасцинација данашњег посматрача 3D простором
на слици, удаљава стваралаштво уметника од
његовог индивидуалног израза, његове интуитивне
геометрије и његовог начина доживљаја реалности,
што су иначе важне карактеристике сваког
врхунског уметничког дела. У овом раду се
проучава инверзна перспектива и њени визуелни
ефекти примењени у простору Сезанове слике.
FME Transactions